ORDER
Kuldip Singh, J.
1. The appellant was working as a conductor with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur (the Corporation). A departmental enquiry was held against him on the allegations that he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 2300. The charge of misappropriation was proved against him and as a consequence he was dismissed from service by the order dated April 10, 1980. The appellant raised a dispute and the State Government made a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry held against the appellant was neither fair nor proper and as such it gave an opportunity to the Corporation to prove the charge against the appellant before the Labour Court. Finally the Labour Court by its award dated April 23, 1991 upheld the dismissal of the appellant. The appellant challenged the said award by way of a writ petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. The only point raised before the High Court was that the order dismissing the appellant could only be effective from April 23, 1991 (the date of the award) and not from April 10, 1980 when it was originally passed. The High Court rejected the contention raised by the appellant and dismissed the writ petition.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Mrs. Chandan Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellant has placed strong reliance on the following observations from the judgment of this Court in D.C. Roy v. Presiding Officer, M.P. Industrial Court, Indore :
The second contention must also therefore fail. We would, however, like to add that the decision in P.H. Kalyani v. Air France, Calcutta case 1963-I-LLJ-679 is not to be construed as a charter for employers to dismiss employees after the pretence of an enquiry. The enquiry in the instant case does not suffer from defects so serious or fundamental as to make it non est. On an appropriate occasion, it may become necessary to carve an exception to the ratio of Kalyani (supra) case so as to exclude from its operation at least that class of cases in which under the facade of a domestic enquiry, the employer passes an order gravely detrimental to the employee’s interest like an order of dismissal. An enquiry blatantly and consciously violating principles of natural justice may well be equated with the total absence of an enquiry so as to exclude the application of the ‘relation-back’ doctrine. But we will not pursue the point beyond this as the facts before us do not warrant a closer consideration thereof.
Mrs. Ramamurthi has vehemently contended that the domestic enquiry against the appellant having been held to be unfair the order of dismissal dated April 10, 1980 became illegal and inoperative as a consequence. According to her the dismissal order could only operate from the date of the award which was given as a result of the fair and proper enquiry held by the Labour Court itself.
3. We do not agree with the contentions raised by the learned Counsel. We are of the view that the enquiry held against the appellant by the Corporation in the instant case did not suffer from defects which were so serious or fundamental as to render the same non est. We have perused Part 1 of the award wherein the Labour Court has held the domestic enquiry to be unfair. The defects on the basis of which the domestic enquiry was held to be unfair did not go to the root of the case and as such it is not possible to hold that the said enquiry was void and non est. We see no ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached therein. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
